This is the work that I did in R. In case it doesn't want to open, I took some screen shots of what I did:
(All right, this isn't bad, but do take some time in the future to figure out how to post your results to the web in a readable way. You'll have to do it by the end of the semester so start playing with posting results in a better way! See in RStudio there is even an export button above where graphs are plotted?)
(I analyzed the group "poor people", as well as its correlation with the group "rich people" since my research topic is social mobility)
Extrapolation: The minimum and the maximum are the lowest and highest points that have been awarded from each respondent to the group "poor people". Because the minimum was 0, there was someone that had the weakest response to poor people, while there was also someone that had the strongest response possible, as indicated through the maximum of 100. The first quartile means that 25 percent of the group responded with a reaction lower than the number 60, while 25 percent of the group responded with a reaction high than 96.26, as seen in the third quartile. The median means that the middle number of the data set was 70, so 50 percent of the responses were lower than 70 and the other 50 percent was higher. The mean implies that the average response number was 74.55. That means that there were enough strong responses in order to shift the average past the median. The standard deviation means that the data was mostly spread by roughly 20 on either side of the mean, showing that there was a variety of responses towards this group. There was not much of a correlation between the responses regarding poor people to the responses regarding rich people, but the correlation that is there is positively correlated. (Where is the correlation coefficient? I don't see it.) This means that if a respondent has strong reaction towards poor people, they may have a higher likelihood of having a strong reaction to rich people. Overall, this data displays a variety of responses, which could possibly lead us to the conclusion that Americans have mixed views on the poor and perhaps the opportunities they should have.
Solid job, good narration of the results. Just work on exporting and posting graphics and you'll be in great shape as we approach a final research product. Especially because you're interested in grad school, if you're interested in going into the social sciences at least, I really encourage you to double-down on this class! It will pay off for you to learn all this stuff as well as possible... You'll be ahead of the curve compared to most of the people you enter grad school with!)
This is the work that I did in R. In case it doesn't want to open, I took some screen shots of what I did:
(All right, this isn't bad, but do take some time in the future to figure out how to post your results to the web in a readable way. You'll have to do it by the end of the semester so start playing with posting results in a better way! See in RStudio there is even an export button above where graphs are plotted?)
(I analyzed the group "poor people", as well as its correlation with the group "rich people" since my research topic is social mobility)
Descriptive statistics, correlation, standard deviation, and histogram:
http://i45.tinypic.com/13z7biw.jpg
Kernel:
http://i49.tinypic.com/zlamnq.jpg
Box Plot:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2chaknq.jpg
Scatter Plot:
http://i45.tinypic.com/23h0kki.png
Code:
summary(poorppl)
sd(poorppl, na.rm=TRUE)
boxplot(poorppl)
hist(poorppl)
d <- density(poorppl, na.rm=TRUE)
plot(d)
cor(poorppl, richppl, use="complete.obs")
plot(poorppl, richppl)
Table:
The minimum and the maximum are the lowest and highest points that have been awarded from each respondent to the group "poor people". Because the minimum was 0, there was someone that had the weakest response to poor people, while there was also someone that had the strongest response possible, as indicated through the maximum of 100. The first quartile means that 25 percent of the group responded with a reaction lower than the number 60, while 25 percent of the group responded with a reaction high than 96.26, as seen in the third quartile. The median means that the middle number of the data set was 70, so 50 percent of the responses were lower than 70 and the other 50 percent was higher. The mean implies that the average response number was 74.55. That means that there were enough strong responses in order to shift the average past the median. The standard deviation means that the data was mostly spread by roughly 20 on either side of the mean, showing that there was a variety of responses towards this group. There was not much of a correlation between the responses regarding poor people to the responses regarding rich people, but the correlation that is there is positively correlated. (Where is the correlation coefficient? I don't see it.) This means that if a respondent has strong reaction towards poor people, they may have a higher likelihood of having a strong reaction to rich people. Overall, this data displays a variety of responses, which could possibly lead us to the conclusion that Americans have mixed views on the poor and perhaps the opportunities they should have.
Solid job, good narration of the results. Just work on exporting and posting graphics and you'll be in great shape as we approach a final research product. Especially because you're interested in grad school, if you're interested in going into the social sciences at least, I really encourage you to double-down on this class! It will pay off for you to learn all this stuff as well as possible... You'll be ahead of the curve compared to most of the people you enter grad school with!)